No. This universe. This timeline. This planet. This America. Others countries have managed to marginalize civilian access to guns. Why can’t American accomplish the same and better? Are we not exceptional?
Nuclear weapons =/= hand guns.
No nuclear weapons have been used to kill school children, AFAIK.
I’m okay with law enforcement having guns. This is not about law enforcement. If your argument is that we’ll need more cops on the street to prevent crime. Fine, let’s put more cops on the street.
I’m suggesting a better alternative, not a perfect one. Is your position that we shouldn’t try because it’ll be really hard?
Look folks… we’ve had this argument ad nauseum. I’m not expecting to convince any gun enthusiast of my point of view any more than they are likely to convince me of theirs.
Stop trying to revoke peoples rights.
You know, how the democrat party says they don’t want to ban guns, they just want “reasonable restrictions” when really they want to ban guns.
Cute. 
I hear ya. I wish they’d come right out and say it and stand up for what they really believe. I’d have more respect for them.
Me too.
They did kill a few tens of thousands of them directly in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and it’s unknown how many people have died as a result of radiation exposure they received as children from nuclear tests.
Chris Rock has said, “Make guns free, and bullets cost $5,000. That way, if someone gets shot, you know they NEED to be dead.” 
I want to ban them. I wallow in your respect.
Like the right to own slaves, for instance?
Then you get more in that regard than I would give czarcasm.
Was that in the Bill of Rights?
I don’t see your point. The Bill of Rights are amendments - additions/corrections to the original Constitution. Amendments can be repealed or changed, you know.
Merely being one of the first 10 amendments does not make them somehow any more or less eligible to further amendment or repeal, once the nation is governed by a wiser, more enlightened people.
Yes. 10th amendment, no?
Never seen that connection drawn before.
Probably i’m just misunderstanding it legally. But if the power to declare whether slavery is legal or not isn’t one granted via the Constitution, then it’s a matter for the states. So if a state government considered slavery a right, wouldn’t that right be effectively protected by the 10th Amendment?
I bet you never thought Governor Brown would be the one standing up for you 
Frankly, I think he partly did that because he didn’t want the constitutional challenge. It used to be the gun nuts that were afraid of what the courts might say but things have swung so far in one direction that now that it is swinging back, its the gun grabbers that seem afraid of litigation.
Do you think it does any good at all?
It was a lot easier in a monarchy (or tyranny) or in the aftermath of WWII. I suppose we had an opportunity to disarm the populace in the aftermath of the Civil War during reconstruction and maybe WWII with the rationing and the war effort (If you do with less, they’ll have enough [insert picture of bleeding US soldiers fighting Hitler while running out of food and ammunition])
I am saying that unlike the bible, the constitution is not immutable.
What do YOU think I was using the bible as a reference?
I’ve used religious analogies in this debate a few times. For example, when one of my fellow gun nuts shouts “what part of shall not be infringed don’t you understand” I point out that even the ten commandments are subject to interpretation otherwise the “thou shalt not kill” commandment would make guns almost entirely useless to a Christian. Its something I use because its a reference that most people are familiar with.
Then amend it and good luck getting 2/3 of each house and 3/4 of the states. There may be some moment in time where some weird confluence of events yields 2/3 of the house voting for such an amendment but I don’t see 60 senators voting for that, and even if they did, I can name 20 states off the top of my head that will never ratify that sort of an amendment in the next 224 years, and most gun grabbers know this. This is why most gun grabbers try to treat the second amendment like it was some sort of vestigial organ of the constitution that should be ignored.
You said invited to leave the country instead of being allowed to stay and argue against the laws. Did you mean that Kable’s invitation to find a country that doesn’t have a second amendment if ours bothers you so much is the government punishing you for dissent? But seriously what example did you have in mind? Was it the Nazis and the holocaust or something like that and now you’re embarrassed to admit it? Because that was the first thing that popped into my head before I realized it wasn’t applicable at all.
Kable wasn’t telling you to love it or leave it. Our second amendment seems to bother you a lot and we are NEVER going to get rid of it in your lifetime so he was just telling you that there are other places where you could go if the laws of this particular country bother you so much.
Can you name 38 states that would ratify a repeal of the second amendment knowing it would be following by confiscation of all firearms from civilians? I can’t even name 25 states that would do that.
Hiroshima, Nagasaki.
Cops rarely stop a crime, they enforce the laws an sometimes catch the bad guys after the crime has been committed. If you want my gun, I want a society that is so safe that the average beat cop doesn’t feel the need to be armed, like London.
If you can’t get enough cops on the beat to keep a congresswoman from being robbed blocks from capitol hill, we can’t really rely on cops to prevent crimes now can we? They can’t be everywhere and you can’t carry one around in your pocket.
You are suggesting an impossible alternative. Its not a matter of the gun nuts trying to convince the gun grabbers. We already have the guns an the law is on our side. We have won so if you want to change the status quo, the burden is on you to make an argument to change it, not on us to make an argument to maintain the status quo.
Your alternative is not necessarily an improvement to the status quo. Revolvers can go tens of thousands of rounds before needing replacement parts. A semiautomatic can go thousands of rounds before needing replacement springs, etc. How many years do you think we’re talking about before the criminal’s guns wear out?
You would be better off advocating for licensing and registration. You might get that at some point in the next century or two (I don’t see getting anything close to it now).
I bellieve the bill of rights were adopted with the constitution but yeah, you’re right, they can be amended just as readily as any other part of the constitution. But I can’t find the part of the constitution that would have prevented the federal government from outlawing slavery.
Commerce clause?
Not an interpretation from the origin of the Constitution, so far as i’m aware.
I did actually think that Brown would veto. He’s been a gun right supporter for many many years, is a gun owner and not the kind that does fake photo ops. As attorney general, he wrote an amicus brief in support of McDonald in the Chicago case. His DoJ gave some favorable rulings to the state BATF that led to less crappy prosecutions and more clear guidance. In a heavily democratic state, it’s accepted that he has to pay lip service to gun control advocates and he did sign some bills into law that weren’t great. But overall he’s a friend to the 2nd amendment, especially considering his opponent was Meg Whitman who ran as a republican but was really a bay area gun control supporter. There were many gun rights advocates that supported Brown, just like there were many who supported Harry Reid in NV. Gun rights are the issue. Left and right don’t matter.
These legislative efforts are local. Don’t mistake Heller and McDonald as a victory. Those were merely steps necessary for future litigation. Until there is nationwide carry reciprocity, until the NFA is repealed, there is a long road ahead.
Jesus, there’s stupid, there’s stupid, and then there’s nearwildheaven. You think the Rwandan holocaust was committed by one lone individual at a time, attacking entire villages armed with a machete? You bring a whole new level of meaning to ‘retarded’.
You could probably wipe out entire villages armed with nothing but nail clippers…if you had 200 guys with you all hell-bent on destroying everything in your path, while your victims were simultaneously trying to protect their spouses and children.
Not enough to matter.
Missed opportunities indeed, but there were other more pressing things to worry about.
America can stand some loosening up on the bible and religion as well. But that’s a different debate.
Agreed. It would take a monumental change of political and social tide to enact this sort of constitutional change. I’m not holding my breath either.
It is not the gov’t that’s inviting me to find another place to live. It’s just a random person on a message board. But the sentiment is ironic (moronic?) coming from someone who loves to abuse the word “freedom” as much as he does. Pretty sure he’s not the first, last or only person with that sort mind set. Given that states have recently passed laws banning Sharia (talk about over-reaction), is it so difficult to imagine that a freedom-gun loving gov’t representatives would pass laws inviting those who disagree to move out of their state?
I was not thinking anything on the grand scale such as the Holocaust. I was thinking Alexander Solzhenitsyn and Andrei Sakharov. But you know what, why not the Holocaust? Ze Nazis aside, plenty of evidence that documents locals in Poland, Ukraine, the Baltics and elsewhere taking matter into their own hands and finally getting even with those jew neighbours. Hell, they didn’t even need the Nazis during the pogroms. Never under-estimate the capacity of the average person to sink to their own level of depravity, given the right set of circumstances. But perhaps your solution would be to arm those jews, eh? You think that would right the minds of their enemies? A well stocked gun cabinet makes for good neighbours, right?
No I cannot. I’ve already admitted that a change of social conscience and political tide would need to take place in order for that to happen. Politicians are too cowardly to take the lead. So no, I don’t see that changing any time soon. YOU WIN.
Which private citizen purchased and dropped those bombs? Refresh my memory. You know damn well the discussion is about guns and murders committed of private citizens by private citizens. Let’s not take the obtuse route.
But you admit that countries like that exist and people feel relatively safe without private ownership of guns. Why not here?
I’m suggesting a difficult alternative. You want to make it sound impossible because it supports your status quo. Not that long ago it was impossible to run a plantation without slaves. Attitudes change. Slowly.